Hi Gregory,
This seems like a workable solution, which removes the need for
forking proposals by working group members into another system
(bugzilla).
What will need to be clarified is the process and format for putting
proposals into the tracker, as currently it is at the descretion of
those with write access (well actually, only those with write access
who don't fall foul of the rules laid down by mike smith.).
It is well acknowledged that the current sytem (via the HTML WG
mailing list) is not working well.
I do not see why there would be objection to providing a method for
WG members to make a proposal that can be tracked and formally
recognised in an organised manner. All that is needed is an agreed
process for changing their status from raised to open.
I look forward to the response from the chairs on this issue.
On 05/06/2008, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote:
> aloha, josh!
>
> my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was logged
> in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue, it is
> not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in their
> capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect that:
>
> * RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in
> at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed
>
> * OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG
>
> * CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that
> issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so
> that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and
> objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that
> the issue should not be closed
>
> or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as "PROPOSED"?
>
> bugzilla could then be reserved for micro-issues and detailed discussion
> thereof, thus avoiding the bifurcation of feedback streams that using
> bugzilla to propose issues would cause...
>
> gregory
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
> as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them
> with others. -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
> Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
> To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>,
> Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>,
> www-archive@w3.org, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita"
> <oedipus@hicom.net>
> Sent: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:43:34 +0100
> Subject: Re: discretion & the issue tracker (was Re: discretion in adding
> issues)
>
> > Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > Why can't there be a 'proposal tracker' implemented that is open to
> > > anyone in the working group to add proposals to, via a form perhaps
> > > that asks for certain information about the proposal, so it can then
> > > be evaluated and debated by WG members?
> >
> > That sounds like a good idea to me also.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Josh
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html